Not mine. This was posted on a conservative news blog. I'm just passing it along.

robertn

January 23, 2013, 08:00 AM

Yeah that would pretty much upset me quite a bit...

Inebriated

January 23, 2013, 08:02 AM

Rage-inducing.

cfullgraf

January 23, 2013, 08:08 AM

I had a bad experience with GEICO Insurance 35 years ago and have not gotten over it yet.

i am not surprised.

mcdonl

January 23, 2013, 08:09 AM

Well... hold on now. I had my insurance cancled once because I had (Thankfully removable) signs on the side of my truck when I ran a landscaping business.

I suspect that if the policy holder had a "Business dealing with the sale of pharmacuticals" or something along those lines the result may be similar.

You are not supposed to conduct business with a vehicle holding a personal policy.

gunNoob

January 23, 2013, 08:14 AM

Wow. Good thing I have USAA.

hso

January 23, 2013, 08:15 AM

We should know all the facts before we break out the pitchforks and torches.

Was this a private vehicle policy instead of a business vehicle policy and the insurance company cancelled it for that reason OR is it a prejudicial practice based on an association with firearms?

beatledog7

January 23, 2013, 08:23 AM

We should know all the facts before we break out the pitchforks and torches.

Was this a private vehicle policy instead of a business vehicle policy and the insurance company cancelled it for that reason OR is it a prejudicial practice based on an association with firearms?

The letter clearly sates that the reason for cancellation was an association with the "weapons industry." Why is that ambiguous to you?

hk-sigman

January 23, 2013, 08:24 AM

Considering that the letter states specifically the gun industry then I would say that they have something against guns. If it were because the vehicle is used for business then I suspect that they would have stated that he needs to insure it as a business policy rather than a personal policy. Most insurance companies would rather tell him to upgrade the policy rather than lose the policy by cancelling it.

blarby

January 23, 2013, 08:24 AM

Geico does not do heavy industry commercial auto.

It says GEICO COMMERCIAL INSURANCE right on it. Chances are the insured seriously misrepresented the nature of the business to the rep who took the policy over the phone, or in person.

Once U/W pulls the digital registration ( as they do on ALL COMMERCIAL POLICIES- this is not a witch hunt) and determines the course of business of the insured, standard underwriting practices are applied.

They cover briefcase business, thats about it. They will do some light industrial uses- such as landscaping ( but no gasoline transport) construction workers trucks ( but no oxy and acet, etc)

It could have been a popcorn company- it does not matter.

Most states require that insurance companies notify the insured in writing if their course of business does not meet their underwriting criteria, and what that criteria is - in this case, the class of business.

They also don't insure welding rigs over 22k GVW, or , and here's the important part here :vehicles that transport hazardous or flammable materials for a profit.

This is not a gun issue. This is a "we don't insure certain classes of business due to the liability involved" issue.

FWIW- as an auto agent- I used to get a lot of these types of letters in my office.

We usually got them when placing business that the insured didn't want to disclose to an agent in person- so they called someone over the phone who didn't ask the right questions. Licensed agents who make money on the retention of business, not just point of sale- do.

Underwriting always does. They just don't get to ask it over the phone during the sales call. They don't get the opportunity.

Chances are ( more than sure on this one- knowing GEICOs regular business practices) that the underwriter called the insured, and asked about all his daily activities using the vehicle.

The insured told him, and it involved transporting firearms and/or ammunition as the course of business.

Sorry folks- they are considered hazardous or dangerous cargo. Less so the firearm- moreso the ammunition, but they do put them together. No, an underwriter will not willingly believe that you are in the firearms business, and transport firearms- but never transport ammunition. I was one, and I wouldn't believe it either. You might get a rookie to take a declaration, written and signed under penalty of perjury that you don't do "x, y. or Z"... but if you have an accident, and you are indeed doing " X, y, or Z" they will not cover it.

It happens. I have seen it. People lie to save money. In insurance- this is never a good idea. The coverage you need is out there. Its all about the law of large numbers- they insure the percentage of risk, with a little profit. Think your rate is high ? Consider the risks you are trying to insure.

All those crazy tin-foil hatty ideas we all have about things that can go wrong, once in a million times ? Thats what insurance companies cover you against- so yes, they consider them. They are on the hook for the vagaries of fate- and the certainty of human error.

Sorry, put the pitchforks down, snuff the torches.

G.barnes

January 23, 2013, 08:30 AM

it said "used in conjunction with a company". sounds like he was using it as a part time commercial vehicle.

jim243

January 23, 2013, 08:34 AM

This is not a gun issue.

That does not matter, the company is owned by Waren Buffet one of Oboma's biggest supporters, I just don't trust slimy green lizzards.

Jim

blarby

January 23, 2013, 08:47 AM

Type short lane LLC into google.

See what comes up.

This is not a hard concept to understand................

Call then- tell them you need a policy that covers you while transporting dangerous and hazardous materials.

Say whatever you want. Then at the end of the call, say it also involves ammunition and firearms, or commerical use of explosive gases- see what they tell you.

Then call back, and ask for a quote on a commercial policy. Tell tem you are a manager of a firearms company, and that they give you a vehicle in the company name, which you use for going to sales mettings, marketing meetings, and general office duties.

You might take a display sample, once in a while- but its very rare, and not part of your regular duties.

One of these is insurable. One of them is a realistic explanation, the other one is clean-sheeted to pass underwriting. I can bet which one he used to get the policy..........

BSA1

January 23, 2013, 08:50 AM

I did a quick search on Google and PRESTO!

http://www.gunadapters.com/pages/Contact.html

Well whadda know. They are a "percision manufacturer of shotgun adapters and shotgun accessories." Sounds like to me to they had a company vehicle insured under the wrong kind of policy.

Tcruse

January 23, 2013, 09:01 AM

Wow. Good thing I have USAA.
USAA is not gun friendly. They tried to keep guns out of the cars of their employees and got an exception to the Texas law that allows such.

Husker_Fan

January 23, 2013, 09:05 AM

I would not be surprised if vehicles used in firearms related businesses are more often broken into than the general commercial fleet. Having different underwriting standards for different businesses isn't exactly surprising.

GAMALOT

January 23, 2013, 09:12 AM

I've been wanting to blow that Lizard away anyway!

Double Naught Spy

January 23, 2013, 09:14 AM

The name not blacked out isn't because of the OP as he noted. The former insuree posted the information on his Facebook page, LOL, that has a link to the website that is selling their products. So no real privacy is being violated that isn't voluntary. The information was made public.

huntsman

January 23, 2013, 09:33 AM

you didn't expect the gungrabbers and .gov to play fair did you? I'm waiting for the homeowners policies to get cancelled, afterall they can cancel for a woodstove or certain dogs and other hazards.

When I updated my inventory this year, about 20% of my annual ho-6 premium is firearms related special coverage.

Sorry, there is no military/industrial/insurance complex vying to disarm you via insurance practices.

Lol.

We have enough real threats- we don't need to enchant/conjure ones that don't exist because we are running out of opponents.

blarby

January 23, 2013, 10:05 AM

In actuality, you should be thanking insurance companies- as they actually look at the percentage risks- not the hype.

They base their underwriting on actuarial principles- not mainstream media hype.

Anyone who owns a pool, and a house, understands this concept.

The individual liability risk from firearms ownership is quite low, due mainly to the mindset of individuals that own and maintain firearms in their homes.

The highest risk in this arm of loss protection is theft and fire- not a shooting tort.

They ( insurance companies) are quite possibly one of the few industries in our "complex" that actually rates and classifies based on actual risk percentage, not hype.

If you need a more exhaustive explanation of anything i've posted, from an insurance prospective- please feel free to PM me.

RetiredUSNChief

January 23, 2013, 10:12 AM

Geico does not do heavy industry commercial auto.

It says GEICO COMMERCIAL INSURANCE right on it. Chances are the insured seriously misrepresented the nature of the business to the rep who took the policy over the phone, or in person.
.
.
Sorry, put the pitchforks down, snuff the torches.

Just what I was thinking.

Insurance companies balance risk with fees and issue policies based on those risks. If the risks are not properly represented, then the policy is subject to being voided.

Personal automobile insurance is not designed to cover the risks associated with various commercial uses.

MachIVshooter

January 23, 2013, 10:13 AM

Pay attention to what blarby says. If you misrepresent something to get a lower insurance premium, the BEST CASE is that they'll discover it and re-write or cancel your policy. The worst possible outcome? You end up needing that insurance, and they end up not having to pay you due to a technicality in the terms that you are not compliant with.

As an example, my 1966 M35A2 "Deuce and a half" is insured as a parade vehicle, which limits mileage and usage in exchange for a very low monthly rate on a vehicle that maybe sees 200-300 miles per year on average. But guess what happens if I were to use it for towing a customer vehicle and something got damaged?

Insurance for private stuff, whether it is homeowners, vehicle or otherwise is always going to be less expensive and more inclusive. As soon as it goes over to the commercial side, it's a whole new ball game. And that includes commercial use of a private vehicle.

hk-sigman

January 23, 2013, 10:20 AM

It does say "Commercial Insurance" right on it. Which means that this was NOT a case of the insured misrepresenting his business! Clearly GEICO cancelled him because he is in the firearms business. I find it unbelievable how many people are taking GEICO's side on this...must be insurance agents!

MachIVshooter

January 23, 2013, 10:26 AM

It does say "Commercial Insurance" right on it. Which means that this was NOT a case of the insured misrepresenting his business! Clearly GEICO cancelled him because he is in the firearms business. I find it unbelievable how many people are taking GEICO's side on this...must be insurance agents!

It's not a matter of taking sides. It's a matter of certain insurance companies don't do certain types of insurance, and if you misrepresent something to get the policy written, you risk having the policy cancelled or not being covered if you actually need it. the M35A2 I have that I mentioned in my last post? Farmers wouldn't cover it at all, which is why I went to state farm. I could have fudged about the vehicle, not told them what it's weight is and got a policy written for "Kaiser Jeep truck", but I guarantee at some point they'd have either discovered what it was and cancelled me or, worse, I'd end up filing a claim that got denied because I misrepresented.

Loaded ammunition, gunpowder and primers are considered hazmat by many insurance companies (powder and primers by NTSB, NHTSA). It probably has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with transporting flammables and explosives.

PRM

January 23, 2013, 10:32 AM

Tried the Lizard for a short while, had real good rates. My wife's vehicle got broken into Easter weekend, 2011. We had a horrible time getting the glass and other damage repaired. The dealership body shop that was doing the work said they had more trouble getting Geico to pay their claims than any other insurance company they worked with. Changed companies as soon as the claim was settled.

Just another affirmation. Maybe the NRA should start offering insurance :-)

blarby

January 23, 2013, 10:42 AM

It does say "Commercial Insurance" right on it.

I stated as such.

Which means that this was NOT a case of the insured misrepresenting his business!

Not necessarily true. Please see #15

Given the circumstances involved, I'd say there is a fairly good percentage chance that the insured misrepresented himself. One of the basic questions that geico asks during processing of a commercial policy over the phone ( I know- I had one for about a year) includes a question that relates specifically to the transportation or retention of hazardous materials in the insured vehicle. No, they don't include gasoline in the fuel tank. They would consider 3 5 gal cans of fuel in your trunk, or pickup bed.

In cases where an insurance company is using its own agents- not independent producers, they cannot reject policies. They can cancel them for cause.

If this had come across my desk as a submitted application, during the underwriting review, I very likely would have rejected it for material misrepresentation- or at the very best concealment. A call to the producer would have followed, with the premise being his understanding that we do not accept such risks- his acknolwedgement of that is expressly stated in his agency appointment, and that I'm sorry that insured must have misled him.

If he stated anything to the contrary, it goes right to marketing- thats not my department.

An agents job is to vet his prospects entire insured position- not just submit paperwork on behalf of the applicant- this is called "field underwriting".

Given that its GEICO- and they use their own agents...its a little trickier. They use a marketing tehnique thats widely known as "shake n bake"- they use mass marketing to attract as much business as possible, vet the business via a basic straghtforward underwriting process to remove adverse risks ( the shake) and keep the rest via prompt issuance ( the bake). It does not have your interests at heart- it has their bottom line. This is part of the problem with stock companies versus mutual companies.

Just because its a commercial policy, does not mean it covers every form of commerce you could conceive of.

Unfortunately, insurance is not a simple thing, contracted in a simple world. This is why agents that sell and advise on insurance must be vigorously examined, licensed by the states they transact in, bonded, and continually educated in their constantly evolving marketplace. One of the few types of selling that has such requirements- including continuing education stipulations.

dvdcrr

January 23, 2013, 11:12 AM

The insurance industry is one of the major threats to American liberty. If they had their way you would be eating carrots three times a day in a padded room.

blarby

January 23, 2013, 11:20 AM

ROFL.

I think at that point, I'll have to say I'm done.

I've said my piece- ya'll have fun now, ya hear ?

*passes out rolls of tinfoil*

deadin

January 23, 2013, 11:56 AM

You know, if you really don't like insurance companies you can always self-insure. It may take posting a very large bond, but it can be done......

blarby, Sounds like you are in the industry, I worked for SAFECO for 20 years, Commercial Lines UW and Actuarial. The policies I used to get a real kick from were the Farm Policies. It seems all you needed was a small acreage and a chicken or two to qualify for the lower vehicle rates. We even had one that had his Rolls-Royce listed. (I would love to have seen him taking his hogs to market.:D)

blarby

January 23, 2013, 12:12 PM

I could put a nuclear missile silo on a farm policy- I hear ya :D

jdh

January 23, 2013, 12:16 PM

Wow. Good thing I have USAA.

Who wouldn't insure my truck because it had a flat bed on it. Not because it was used in a commercial enterprise, which it was not, simply because it had a flat bed.

Shadow 7D

January 23, 2013, 12:17 PM

Don't forget, if they (the insurance company) can keep from paying out, legally, it's THEIR best scenario, you have been paying, and they don't have to cover you because of your breech.

1911 guy

January 23, 2013, 12:19 PM

I gotta side with the O.P. here. Notice says reason for cancellation was vehicle is by a company associated with the weapons industry. No mention of misrepresentation, Haz-Mat, nothing. Unless GEICO comes up with something else, we have nothing but "weapons industry" to base the cancellation on.

When I updated my inventory this year, about 20% of my annual ho-6 premium is firearms related special coverage.

Sorry, there is no military/industrial/insurance complex vying to disarm you via insurance practices.

Lol.

We have enough real threats- we don't need to enchant/conjure ones that don't exist because we are running out of opponents.
Under the bill proposed in Massachusetts, there would be specific penalties for anyone found in possession of a gun without insurance. The fines would range from $500 to $5,000 or up to a year in jail.Linsky said he purposely left vague the details about what level of insurance would be required or whether existing homeowner's insurance policies that cover guns in the home would suffice.

It looks like Ed Levine from the VCDL is aware and has sent them one of his friendly post cards-

http://edsfiles.us/postcards/geico.jpg

Double Naught Spy

January 23, 2013, 03:07 PM

Just what fleet of vehicles does Ed Levine have? The post card was very vague and likely will not be taken all that seriously, the gist being that he read about a cancellation online and so is cancelling his policy as well. That doesn't give Mr. Nicely much to work with or address.

Black Butte

February 19, 2013, 01:10 AM

I suspect that if the policy holder had a "Business dealing with the sale of pharmacuticals" or something along those lines the result may be similar.

You are not supposed to conduct business with a vehicle holding a personal policy.

This is not what the letter says. The issue is clearly the fact that the vehicle is connected with the firearms industry in particular.

JohnBT

February 19, 2013, 08:13 AM

www.snopes.com/politics/guns/geico.asp

I guess the policy holder didn't avail himself of the appeal process outlined in the letter from Geico. Or return their call. Sometimes it takes a phone call or letter to straighten things out.

I got a letter from Geico a couple of years ago about my homeowner's insurance. They said I had 10 days to put a handrail on the 3 steps on the back porch and send a pic or I'd be canceled. I called and said I'd had the policy (through Travelers originally) since 1980 and why were they bothering me now? They called me back the same day and said "nevermind".

Maybe they were just nice to me because I've had an auto policy since 1967. Who knows.

John

gbran

February 19, 2013, 08:37 AM

Cancel Geico.

It's so easy, a caveman can do it.

JohnBT

February 19, 2013, 01:40 PM

"Cancel Geico."

Why? For what possible reason?

jimmyraythomason

February 19, 2013, 05:35 PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/geico.asp

Steve CT

February 19, 2013, 08:40 PM

blarby, thanks for the informed and common sense info. I'm no expert on this and it sounds like you know what you're talking about. I think your THR post count gives you a lot more credibility than many of the people on this topic.

GEICO has treated me very fairly for 20+ years, even when they raised my rates because my wife just can't seem to stop running into stuff. I still do business with them. Service is great, and the rates have already started dropping now that SOMEONE has found a way to avoid cars, guardrails, etc.

bobinoregon

February 19, 2013, 09:03 PM

Dang it Blarby, stop muddling up the thread with facts, it's no fun.

Husker_Fan

February 19, 2013, 09:19 PM

nevermind

blarby

February 20, 2013, 02:14 AM

Who wouldn't insure my truck because it had a flat bed on it. Not because it was used in a commercial enterprise, which it was not, simply because it had a flat bed.

As an automobile desk and field U/W for more years than I have fingers, you could not convince me a flatbed truck wasn't used or intended to be used for commercial purposes- its just too great a risk. On top of that, its modified which most companies wont cover for liability OR physical damage.

There are no, and have been no, trucks manufactured with a flatbed for the consumer market. They are sold as a cab chassis configuration and built to suit, or stripped of their beds and modified with a flatbed. In most states you can't buy a c/c "truck" on a personal loan, or state on a sales contract that a c/c is for personal use. Look at your salescontract for a new vehicle sometime- notice how it has two boxes for commercial, and personal, use ? Thats more than a benign gesture.

I like Geicos' response to the snopes inquiry... It's nice to have a tiny bit of vindication once in a while :D

Steve : YW :D

Zak Smith

February 20, 2013, 03:31 AM

I guess the policy holder didn't avail himself of the appeal process outlined in the letter from Geico. Or return their call. Sometimes it takes a phone call or letter to straighten things out.

The apologists in this thread disgust me. The company has responsibility for the letter and it clearly states "in conjunction with a company in the weapons industry." That is very specific and it is in writing. They deserve all the negative repercussions this brings and the policy holder doesn't owe them anything.

Jolly Rogers

February 20, 2013, 06:35 AM

Well said Zak.
Joe

JohnBT

February 20, 2013, 08:06 AM

"The apologists in this thread disgust me. The company has responsibility for the letter and it clearly states "in conjunction with a company in the weapons industry." That is very specific and it is in writing. They deserve all the negative repercussions this brings and the policy holder doesn't owe them anything."

Oh nonsense. It's an insurance company. They foul stuff up all of the time and you have to call them on it to get them to change it in your favor. I even provided a personal example. Get a letter that's wrong or just baffling? You have to call them on it, not just post a rant on the net.

I can't honestly say that any of the people in this thread who overreacted to a letter sent by a faceless clerk in a huge corporation disgust me, but they did provide some level of sad amusement.

John

JohnBT

February 20, 2013, 08:28 AM

I talked to a buddy in the insurance business. He wasn't surprised at all.

He says that none of the ususal, well known, major insurance companies will write auto insurance for gun companies, demolition companies, blasting, etc. He said they have to go to, iirc, companies that provide 'excess and surplus' lines of coverage.

One fear is that the company will let their high-dollar general liability policy coverage lapse and the company still holding the commercial auto policy will be royally sued and screwed in the event of a accident, etc. They don't want to be the only player left at the table with deep pockets.

John

cassandrasdaddy

February 20, 2013, 12:54 PM

i don't see the company evading its responsibility. now it all depends on whether the policy holder called or wrote to geico whether he skated on his responsibility. geico will only write limited commercial policies. i know the underwriter called me back with some specific questions about what types of work i do when i got my policy.

the rant(s) made thrilling soundbites but lacked in real substance

blarby

February 20, 2013, 02:01 PM

companies that provide 'excess and surplus' lines of coverage.

FWIW- surplus lines coverage is simply carriers who aren't admitted to write business in your state- but who may be contracted to through surplus lines brokers after a due diligence search has been performed....proving that the coverage cannot be obtained through reasonable means by a carrier admitted to write insurance in your state.

Essentially, he needs a BOP that covers his industry specifically- and that wil include scheduled vehicles during the course of business.

His situation isn't particularly hard to insure correctly.

Its very easy to insure incorrectly, especially when trying to save 15% in 15 minutes.

Surprise ! Someone who has their hands on the ( perhaps $1,000,000) pie noticed.

I've worked with a lot of new businesses who got referred to a quality agent by their lawyer. His usual first advice : Find a good insurance agent, you aren't one- and you will need one frequently in business.

Its often true even in the insurance agency that agents and agency owners frown on writing policies for themselves- theres an objectivity issue when it comes to placing and classifying the business.

This is a great example, albeit under different terms.

I've searched this one around a few gun and non gun forums.

Wow. All I can say is wow.

Its not really the metric tons of tinfoil that bother me, its just the general ignorance of a given business flavored with a few drops of conspiracy that lead to wild crazy accusations and premises-

Kinda like reporters trying to get guns right. And theres a really good message their about literally "jumping the gun".

Zak Smith

February 20, 2013, 02:53 PM

Its not really the metric tons of tinfoil that bother me, its just the general ignorance of a given business flavored with a few drops of conspiracy that lead to wild crazy accusations and premises
I am done giving the benefit of the doubt to companies in these situations. The letter didn't say that the application was misclassified or that it was for commercial when the person signed up for something else. It said it was because it was used in conjunction with the weapons industry

The exact same type of apologies or explanations were made in the threads about banks dropping gun companies or credit card merchant account providers dropping gun companies (like happened to me). There is always a no-accountability "explanation" for why something was done. Let's make them accountable.

Teachu2

February 20, 2013, 02:57 PM

Zack, why not call Geico and see if YOU can get a policy for YOUR gun business?

Zak Smith

February 20, 2013, 02:59 PM

And if they don't because I am a gun business then it proves they were in the wrong on this.

silicosys4

February 20, 2013, 03:39 PM

seems even the mods are taking handfulls of the tinfoil as its being passed around :rolleyes:

Who could believe that Geico is holding to its CYA policy, and that nobody here is well enough versed to know what is really going on?

oh wait. we have an industry insider telling us the skinny....

Nah, just wrap that tinfoil tighter, we don't need no stinkin facts, that's what paranoia and accusations are for

Sav .250

February 20, 2013, 03:46 PM

Well... hold on now. I had my insurance cancled once because I had (Thankfully removable) signs on the side of my truck when I ran a landscaping business.

I suspect that if the policy holder had a "Business dealing with the sale of pharmacuticals" or something along those lines the result may be similar.

You are not supposed to conduct business with a vehicle holding a personal policy.
Food for thought. Some time posters don`t give the "whole" truth. Just the part that stirs the towns-people. Js/n.

Double Naught Spy

February 20, 2013, 04:39 PM

I am done giving the benefit of the doubt to companies in these situations.

Yes, but do we know if the letter is even real and if real, do we really know the circumstances behind the letter? I fully understand not giving them the benefit of the doubt, but why should that mean drawing ignorant conclusions at the other end of the spectrum from the ignorance of "benefit of the doubt" logic? What is wrong with actually withholding judgment until knowing the facts?

There is always a no-accountability "explanation" for why something was done. Let's make them accountable.

Sure, let's make them accountable when we actually know what happened. So when we get that news, how do we make them accountable? What is the proper way to make the accountable for one client being dropped?

JohnBT

February 20, 2013, 04:57 PM

I don't see anyone making apologies for Geico in this thread. I see people who have taken the time and trouble to shed some light - facts - on the subject of the insurance business in the U.S and how they rate companies and commercial insurance for different parts of the market. Why would these facts disgust anyone?

Every company doesn't write every kind of policy. It's rather simple.

The letter said the policy is cancelled and if you have a problem with the decision contact us or the state commissioner (or something like that.) They send a letter, they don't call and leave a message or come by your house for a chat.

John

Dnaltrop

February 20, 2013, 05:53 PM

That is why my wife ran screaming from opportunities in Property and Casualty insurance and stuck with Workmen's Comp.

That thin letter would drive her insane, she's the sort of Type-A-personality-insurance-cyborg who actually details the laws/rules behind her decisions in her letters, (and includes the State Ombudsman's contact info if the claimant wants to try and have state law changed.)

Communication is key, Geico failed that one.

Teachu2

February 20, 2013, 11:58 PM

And if they don't because I am a gun business then it proves they were in the wrong on this.
Agreed!

blarby

February 21, 2013, 04:08 PM

And if they don't because I am a gun business then it proves they were in the wrong on this.

Disagreed.

It would prove that they choose to not be in the business of insuring against the hazards of your vocation- not that they approve or disapprove of your vocation- in this case, firearms.

If the previously insured in this case had misrepresented the fact that he worked in a class of business that is on the prohibited list, and it was discovered by underwriting- that stands on its own.

If the previously insured in this case misrepresented his use of a vehicle for business purposes limited in scope by the nature of the coverage, that too stands on its own.

If geico has decided that it does not want to insure a class of hazardous occupations, that too stands on its own- and differs significantly from them choosing not to insure anyone who owns or uses firearms.

There is well and truly a difference here- it would appear some folks get that, and some do not.

Insurance is one of those interesting niches where business and rights do meet, but I for one do not believe this is an " Anti gun business" as is freely labeled here. I believe this is "risk based underwriting" at its finest- with a small dose of misrepresentation thrown in for good measure.

Look, here's the point :

If geico insured this class of business, and all that it entailed- this letter would never have been sent.

If the previously insured had fully disclosed the nature of his business and scope of the vehicle use during the application process- this letter never would have been sent....as evidenced, the policy would never have been issued.

This isn't an ancient policy dug out of the dust by a vindictive agency looking for a particular class of business to demonize- its obviously a new piece of business that was still in the vetting stages.

The fact is that the coverage this individual is looking for and needs exists- it is however significantly more expensive than a standard geico business use auto policy.

I'd wager a significant sum that somewhere in there is the real reason this is occuring- without casting any stones........

Thats just the way it is, sorry if that offends ya- but its the truth.

Now, if Geico were to state that it was canceling all policies for anyone that owns, uses, or maintains a firearm for personal use- we'd have a completely different discussion.

That is not the case here.

Zak Smith

February 21, 2013, 04:46 PM

It would prove that they choose to not be in the business of insuring against the hazards of your vocation- not that they approve or disapprove of your vocation- in this case, firearms.
It's effectively the same.

There is no evidence for any of the "If...." statements. And the letter states outright it's because of association with a weapons related business. It doesn't say you got the wrong class, or the agent will contact you to reapply for the right one, or because you got a personal and it should have been commercial. It says specifically with weapons.

Teachu2

February 21, 2013, 05:07 PM

Actually, Blarby is entirely correct. Many insurance companies exclude certain breeds of dogs from liability coverage - based on the established risk involved. You can still get coverage, but at a greater cost, through a specialty insurer.

Sorry, Zak, I was premature to agree with you.

Zak Smith

February 21, 2013, 05:22 PM

You can still get coverage, but at a greater cost, through a specialty insurer.
I cannot believe the short-sightedness of you guys. What are you going to do when you can't buy homeowners or auto insurance or open a bank account because you're on the list of "registered gun owners" ?

This is exactly what I meant when I said, there is always a no-accountability "explanation" for why something was done.

I won't get into the dog issue, but we've already seen banks and related industries drop gun companies during the recent anti-gun political fervor because they were in the gun industry. That tells me it has nothing to do with actual risk of the gun companies themselves and everything to do with either political interests of the service providers or promulgation of schemes that do not take into account the actual risks or lack thereof of their existing clients.

blarby

February 21, 2013, 05:40 PM

That tells me it has nothing to do with actual risk of the gun companies themselves and everything to do with either political interests of the service providers or promulgation of schemes that do not take into account the actual risks or lack thereof of their existing clients.

Which tells me that you might be better served by brushing up on firearm torts that involve major insurance carriers.

I cannot believe the short-sightedness of you guys. What are you going to do when you can't buy homeowners or auto insurance or open a bank account because you're on the list of "registered gun owners" ?

Scrapes off the tinfoil Ahem :

Now, if Geico were to state that it was canceling all policies for anyone that owns, uses, or maintains a firearm for personal use- we'd have a completely different discussion.

Insurance companies have been classifying and insuring those classes of risk since before our union was founded.

Believe me- they want to insure you if you are willing to pay. They want you to pay. They want EVERYBODY to pay. But, they want you to pay the right amount for the coverage afforded. Thats how the law of large numbers and the principle of idemnity work hand in hand.

Geico has been doing insurance long before 2nd A was front page news- As the Government Employees Insurance Company until they were forced to drop that marketing tactic- seperate issue.

Fact is- you can't force insurance companies to take risks they haven't or won't actuarially account for- thats their freedom of choice in doing so.

Forcing them to take risks they have accounted for but you won't pay for borders right on the line of theft- and a few other rights, as it were.

Yes, auto insurance coverage is mandated in most states. Fact is you can post a bond in just about every one of those proving your ability to self insure.

Another fact is that no one is forcing you to choose Geico or any other insurer for that matter. You like the rate ? Follow the damn rules that gave you that rate- don't try and make it something its not.

Zak Smith

February 21, 2013, 05:58 PM

The idea that this is tinfoil is ridiculous. Banks and credit card merchant processors have already come out against gun companies, regardless of the risk of the actual ways they do business, simply because they are in a business related to firearms.

Read this and tell me there's nothing political going on and it's just good old American business:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/013013-642578-rahm-emanuel-threatens-banks-on-gun-control.htm?p=full

I am a libertarian and I am not about forcing anyone to do business with anyone else. But if a company snubs any one of us not because of any specific business reason or risk they can articulate and that holds up to examination, but instead solely because we are in the firearms industry, we as the firearms community should mobilize to discourage others from doing business with them.

Thermactor

February 21, 2013, 06:22 PM

I will not renew my coverage with GEICO because of their anti-2A stance. Thanks for posting this - companies like this don't deserve our business.

blarby

February 21, 2013, 06:32 PM

I think the point that keeps getting missed here is that the actual way that business is done here is the issue, not the business itself.

For example :

I had a business use vehicle policy with AIG. I was prohibited from having a gas-welding equipped vehicle or tools on or in a vehicle I used during the course of business.

Why ? Well, of course- AIG abhors welders, and all of their welding ilk. Can't stand 'em. They are a threat to our Union !

No, actually not.

Its because gas welding involves enormous cylinders of pressurized volatile gases, which are extremely dangerous.

The risk of having substantial quantities of fuel outside of engineered parameters on a vessel of that size poses a significant risk- it has nothing to do with the fact that they think the pilot is a communist.

Insuring firearms business is risky.

I mean, REALLY REALLY risky. You are essentially insuring a manufacturer and his products and completed components that when used exactly in accordance with its design- kills things.

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with such an endeavor ? I dunno- ask Winchester. Ask Remington. Ask Hornady. Ask anyone who's been in a courtroom regarding a firearm- functioning correctly or not.

I'm not going to provide an exhaustive list of potential exposures of this business. THR alone should provide enough insight into what might go wrong. Google should provide cathartic levels of holy **** , how did that happen ? moments sufficient to prove this point to anyone who might be curious enough to go digging.

I'm sorry if thats breathtaking news to anyone- but yes, firearms are designed to kill things- as opposed to my briefcase, which is designed to hold documents.

Sometimes they perform exactly as intended. Many times they do not.

"Oh, but my rifle only shoots paper" is not a defense to something that, if pointed in another direction, and allowing for a few MM's of trigger travel, could end a life.

I'm sorry. Thats what the insurers look at. And thats about it.

"oh, but we're perfect- nothing could, or ever will, go wrong"

Then, why do you need insurance ?

Jolly Rogers

February 21, 2013, 08:37 PM

I worked at a body shop that had a Geico Express direct repair affiliation. After years of watching them ( Geico reps) deny obvious damage as unrelated to a loss , requiring another deductable to be applied, and squeezing the shop on every labor negotiation and insisting on substandard aftermarket parts to be installed, I dropped them from covering my cars. They are a for profit company and no longer have their customers best interests in their business plan. :barf:
No tin foil here, just facts.
The fact of them dropping a customer due to the weapons connection does not surprise me. It fits their policy of evading any and I mean ANY liability they can avoid.:fire:
Joe

Teachu2

February 21, 2013, 09:22 PM

Two black 2012 Suburbans with limo-tinted windows are parked side by side in a downtown lot. One has "Gina's Dog Grooming" on it, the other had "Freedom Firearms - for all your shooting needs" on it. Which one's windows get smashed most often?

jdh

February 21, 2013, 09:24 PM

"As an automobile desk and field U/W for more years than I have fingers, you could not convince me a flatbed truck wasn't used or intended to be used for commercial purposes- its just too great a risk. On top of that, its modified which most companies wont cover for liability OR physical damage.

There are no, and have been no, trucks manufactured with a flatbed for the consumer market. They are sold as a cab chassis configuration and built to suit, or stripped of their beds and modified with a flatbed. In most states you can't buy a c/c "truck" on a personal loan, or state on a sales contract that a c/c is for personal use. Look at your salescontract for a new vehicle sometime- notice how it has two boxes for commercial, and personal, use ? Thats more than a benign gesture."

The white CC with Royal Service bed on it the drive way that was bought from the local dealer and financed through Ally on a non-commercial loan would seem to indicate otherwise.

As for dual rear truck it started as life as a normal bed. However it was cheaper in the long run to put the flatbed on it than to keep replacing the "hips", if you could find an unbroken one to use as a replacement, every time some Goober backed into and broke one or a rock got picked up in the duals and launched.

Geico had no problem with either one.

Teachu2

February 21, 2013, 09:53 PM

"As an automobile desk and field U/W for more years than I have fingers, you could not convince me a flatbed truck wasn't used or intended to be used for commercial purposes- its just too great a risk. On top of that, its modified which most companies wont cover for liability OR physical damage.

There are no, and have been no, trucks manufactured with a flatbed for the consumer market. They are sold as a cab chassis configuration and built to suit, or stripped of their beds and modified with a flatbed. In most states you can't buy a c/c "truck" on a personal loan, or state on a sales contract that a c/c is for personal use. Look at your salescontract for a new vehicle sometime- notice how it has two boxes for commercial, and personal, use ? Thats more than a benign gesture."

The white CC with Royal Service bed on it the drive way that was bought from the local dealer and financed through Ally on a non-commercial loan would seem to indicate otherwise.

As for dual rear truck it started as life as a normal bed. However it was cheaper in the long run to put the flatbed on it than to keep replacing the "hips", if you could find an unbroken one to use as a replacement, every time some Goober backed into and broke one or a rock got picked up in the duals and launched.

Geico had no problem with either one.
That may vary by state. CA used to license pickups as personal if you had a bed topper or commercial if the bed was open. Now they are all licensed commercial.

blarby

February 21, 2013, 10:01 PM

The white CC with Royal Service bed on it the drive way that was bought from the local dealer and financed through Ally on a non-commercial loan would seem to indicate otherwise.

Royal beds are put on by dealers all the time onto CC's- they aren't manufactured that way. Same with Doug beds.

It stil has a CC VIN number- and thats how we snag them in underwriting.

Ally doesn't care either way, they'll pretty much finance anything.

The loan isn't necessarily what makes it commercial- its use most certainly does.

You can have a commercial vehicle on a personal loan, and a personal loan on a commercial vehicle in some circumstances... righand/foremen in the oilfields do the latter all the time. Some states allow you to, some don't. I used it simply to help illustrate the difference. In a world where anything is seemingly possible, perhaps I should not have been so absolute. *summarily falls on sword just for you*

On the other hand, your F/I guy who typed up your paperwork might have simply goofed and checked the wrong box- intentionally or unintentionally...I've seen it go both ways on that one. ( I did a stint with a Dodge dealer as a salesman, and also transacted a whole heap of dealership generated auto insurance ... someone goes to buy a car, has no insurance, and they call me....... )

You can also have split use vehicles- you see a lot of these with high mileage professions like real estate agents.. you might have say 40% business use, and 60% personal...and companies can and do rate them that way. The key here is finding someone who can lay that out for ya.

Sales contracts vary by state- most states have the designation on vehicle sales contracts- yours may not.

Its foremost use ( business or personal- on the sales contract) is determining applicable use and registration taxes. California in particular loves this one.

Teach : You can have the commercial designation removed from a pickup in California... but if you get caught hauling anything in the bed, and it isn't registered right, you can get in hot, finey waters. I had a few clients try this with mixed results when arney cranked up the registration fees... remember those good ole days ? Lol,,,,,,,,

Just out of curiosity, what do you use the truck for ?

FWIW- can you see how someone having a commercial-bodied truck, and a flatbed bodied truck, might lead someone to believe they were both being used for some sort of business ? Believe it or not, there are some companies that stipulate that you must insure all the vehicles in your household/business/under your name- with their company to address some of the questions that might arise out of such a situation. Some also stipulate that if they don't insure all of "your" autos- that they know who does...and they want VIN #\s and policy numbers, ta boot.

Ya, insurance is a crazy world, I know. But no one counts beans like the bean counters in U/W and Actuarial, believe me. The IRS could take a lesson.........

In the case of a flat bed, it may come down to the things you could put on it, vs what you might be limited to in a standard box. Usually it just has to do with modification- but every company has different requirements.

If you had a company that really wanted the business, you might be able to get by with a statement signed under penalty of perjury that you weren't using it for business or commercial purposes...which absolves them of just about all the wrong types of liability. Again, some would do this- and some wouldn't. It also might come down to whether they believed you or not. Starting the application process with gross mis-statements will not endear you to any underwriter. Being a long standing policyowner, or new business from an agency with a good history and an agent going to bat for you certainly would.

Sadly, I dont think any of this has much bearing on the subject at hand, but it was a neat sidestreet !

Zak Smith

February 21, 2013, 10:57 PM

Its because gas welding involves enormous cylinders of pressurized volatile gases, which are extremely dangerous.
This is what I was referring to when I said,
But if a company snubs any one of us not because of any specific business reason or risk they can articulate and that holds up to examination
In my experience doing business in several sectors of the firearms and firearms-related industry, you NEVER GET THAT. Instead you get what I referred to as, "a no-accountability "explanation".

I mean, REALLY REALLY risky. You are essentially insuring a manufacturer and his products and completed components that when used exactly in accordance with its design- kills things.

That's all fine and good, and I just filled out paperwork to renew the general commercial liability insurance for our manufacturing business earlier this week (and expect it to be well into the five digits for 2013). But that is what commercial general liability insurance is for and what it is covered under. The company in question makes small machined parts and the likelihood of there being a specific business reason or risk that GEICO could articulate and would hold up to examination is virtually zero, in my opinion. They certainly did not articulate a specific risk for Short Lane LLC in that letter.

hso

February 21, 2013, 11:02 PM

Since no one in this thread is the policy holder nor does anyone know if the policy holder got an explanation from GEICO how can any reasonably informed discussion take place?

Has anyone contacted GEICO to get an explanation?

blarby

February 21, 2013, 11:06 PM

Snopes did, and they got about all the information one could reasonably get without breaching personal and business disclosure issues........

What they got, I believe, speaks volumes to the situation in a few short words.

I certainly can in the morning if it would further the cause........

RetiredUSNChief

February 22, 2013, 09:50 AM

Since no one in this thread is the policy holder nor does anyone know if the policy holder got an explanation from GEICO how can any reasonably informed discussion take place?

Has anyone contacted GEICO to get an explanation?

Well, having pretty much gotten fed up with the back and forth bickering on this subject, I actually took that initiative when I saw this question crop up yet again in my notifications.

Source:

http://www.geico.com/about/contactus/phone/

I contacted Geico through their commercial auto insurance number (1-866-509-9440) and asked them the following:

ME: "I need to know if Geico provides commercial automobile coverage for vehicles which would be used in the transportation of firearms for a business which is involved in commercial sales and repair of firearms."

ANSWER: "No, unfortunately we do not. You will have to find another insurance company for that purpose."

Now, I did ask a few other related questions, such as recommendations for insurance companies who would and if the reason Geico does not is because of risk assessment with providing insurance for such a business use. (No recommendations except to search for "firearms insurance" online and the reason was due to risk assessment.)

However, this person is a salesperson, not a corporate executive, so I did not spend more than a minute or two with her on the phone. She knows company policy, but will not know the full extent of the underlying reasons for why on such specific matters. This means that likely she won't really know whether or not the reason for not providing such coverage is due to "risk assessment" as I asked, or if it's a political motivation by corporate executives. So I did not pursue any further.

BOTTOM LINE:

Geico does not provide commercial auto insurance for vehicles which are involved in the firearms business.

Seems to me as if this matter is closed, as the only thing left to debate is the reason WHY. Unless someone else wishes to take this to the next higher level and contact the Big-Cheese-What's-In-Charge of Geico and delve into this mystery, this debate has already become circular with both sides having expressed their opinions on this.

Make your decision to buy or not to buy Geico however each of you may feel about this.

:scrutiny:

Zak Smith

February 22, 2013, 03:03 PM

Thank you, RetiredUSNChief. Doing something similar was on my to-do list but I've been spending all my extra time fighting the Colorado anti-gun bills the last week.

jdh

February 22, 2013, 03:25 PM

Towing the Travel Trailer, boat, or car trailer. Trips to the dump, parts house, home improvement store, Grocery store, range or hunting lease. Pulling stumps. Getting stuck, pulling the stuck truck out and getting the suburban stuck in the process. As a mobile amateur radio station. AND while the car is getting the engine rebuilt it is my daily driver. One the other have not that much really since it is a 2010 and has a whopping 12.5k on the odometer.

blarby

February 22, 2013, 05:32 PM

Well, there ya have it.

Thanks chief, I've been busy bangin it out over our current crisis here in Oregon... thanks for taking the time.

JohnBT

February 22, 2013, 08:06 PM

"as the only thing left to debate is the reason WHY."

The usual reason an insurance company won't insure a particular industry is because they don't have experts on the payroll with the extensive knowledge of that industry that's needed. You have to know how the industry should be run and what the dangers are before you can begin to calculate the risks and calculate the level of premiums necessary to cover the risks.

Speaking of insuring dangerous activities, is Lloyds of London still the go-to agency for insuring unusual activities? The way they do it is by spreading the risk around. Lloyd's isn't a single company, it's a collection of 80 syndicates as they call them and they often take fractional shares of a policy. It limits exposure in the event of a disaster such as a ship sinking or an oil spill.

blarby

February 22, 2013, 08:14 PM

Yep- lloyds is the go to for the crazy stuff.

They still do a fair amount of "normal" insurance under the lloyds umbrella, but if you need it.....and can pay the 10%....

YOU CALL THE LLOYDS TEAM !

Ahh, the syndicate....

What I find most interesting about lloyds is that families and houses which participated in "underwrtiting" the first oceangoing contracts are still cycling that money by insuring risk today.... now thats money at work.... REAL old money.

Steve CT

February 22, 2013, 08:27 PM

Still no knowledge about whether the policyholder properly identified the business the vehicle was used in.

blarby

February 22, 2013, 09:14 PM

I think we'll have to go with "no" he did not.

Per all of the rest.......

RetiredUSNChief

February 23, 2013, 05:44 AM

You're welcome, guys.

;)

codysalvick

March 7, 2013, 04:40 AM

Well, itís time to shop. I have The Hartford insurance (http://www.thehartford.com/) and Iím quite happy with them. Maybe approach them for a quote? Good luck!